Annual Progression Review
As outlined in the Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes, the University requires all PhD and MPhil postgraduate research (PGR) students to undergo a formal review of their progress on an annual basis known as Annual Progress Review (APR)
A review of the Annual Progress Review (APR) process was undertaken during the 2023-24 academic year, which involved the Doctoral College leading discussions with PGR staff and students across the University around the strengths and weaknesses of the APR process, which had been unchanged for a number of years. The aim was to explore improvements that would make the APR process more contemporary, more efficient and less bureaucratic for both students and staff, in keeping with the ‘Decisive Newcastle’ initiative, but no less rigorous.
Updated APR forms were launched in November 2024 and are accompanied by a detailed guidance document which is available here.
The APR assesses your progress against your research proposal and plan that was submitted as part of the Project Approval process.
Timescale
The first APR should take place approximately 9 months after your initial registration. Thereafter the APRs should take place every 12 months. Your Academic Unit is responsible for determining the date of the APR Panel and communicating the date to you and your APR Panel members.
APR Process
The Annual Progress Review involves the following stages:
Students' submission to the APR panel
All research students are required to engage with the APR process and the progression requirements for full- and part-time students will be clearly specified and made available to you, your supervisory team, and the APR Panel by your Academic Unit/Faculty.
You will need to submit an APR report to the APR Panel every year (via the PGR CoP system) until you have submitted your thesis for examination. In addition, you may also be asked to submit a piece of work for review, give a presentation on your research, undergo a viva or interview, and/or provide evidence of research training undertaken.
Your supervisory team will also provide an annual report on your progress to the APR panel. All reports are submitted via the PGR CoP system.
If you have a Data Management Plan (DMP) you will be asked if you have reviewed this. The DMP is intended to be a living document in which a project’s approach to the management and sharing of data becomes more detailed over time and significant changes are included. This is especially relevant for PGRs whose skills and understanding of the research process will develop rapidly over the course of the project. Further information on DMPs and guidance.
If your progress has been impacted by any factors, you are encouraged to detail tis in your APR report for consideration by your APR Panel.
On submission of the form it will be passed to your supervisor/s so tha they can complete the report.
Supervisors' submission to the APR panel
Supervisors are required to complete a form in the PGR CoP system to provide their view of your progress. Supervisors are asked to comment on your progress, including identifying any factors that may affect your progress, and commenting on your wider development as an independent researcher, training, academic skills needs, etc.
The APR panel
The forms submitted by you and your supervisors are considered by an impartial APR panel, the membership of which should be the same (or equivalent) to the panel that reviewed and approved your research project as part of the Project Approval process. The APR Panel reviews the completed forms and documents, and you may also be invited to attend a meeting, deliver a presentation on your research or undergo a viva or interview.
The APR Panel will consider all the evidence available to them alongside the APR criteria below to determine whether you are making satisfactory progress:
- Whether the project still has clear aims and objectives;
- Whether progress indicates that the research project will meet the standards for the award (as set out in section 17) and be completed by the maximum candidature date for your programme.
- That you have (or can acquire) the knowledge, skills, and aptitudes to complete the project successfully;
- That the proposed supervisory team has, or will be able to acquire, the skills, knowledge and aptitudes necessary to supervise the project to a successful conclusion;
- That sufficient resources are available to complete the project;
- Whether there are any risks to the successful completion of the project.
The APR Panel will produce a report outlining their progress recommendation and comments. The following recommendations are available to the Panel:
i. Performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage;
ii. Overall performance is satisfactory and the student can proceed to the next stage, but the APR Panel has some concerns, which the student and Supervisory Team should address.
iii. Performance is unsatisfactory and a resubmission APR should be held within two months to determine whether progress on the programme will be recommended;
iv. Performance is unsatisfactory and that the student should be transferred from a PhD to an MPhil;
v. Performance is unsatisfactory, no submission for an MPhil or Doctor of Philosophy examination is recommended and registration should be withdrawn.
The exact wording of the outcomes of the progression panel, can be found in the Doctor of Philosophy Degree Progress Regulations (Section J) Doctor of Philosophy Degree Progress Regulations (Section J, sub-section 21).
If the APR Panel chooses Resubmission (recommendation iii), the panel report should be clear and unambiguous about the requirements for the resubmission, including making clear to the student what work needs to be done.
Dean of Postgraduate Studies approval
After reviewing the forms, the Dean of Postgraduate Studies (or nominee) can choose to endorse the recommendation made by the Panel or refer it back if they feel insufficient information has been provided to assist you. The Dean must approve the Panel’s recommendation before the forms can be viewed by you and your supervisor(s).
Notification of outcome
If your progress is confirmed as being satisfactory (recommendations i &ii) you will receive an automated email advising you of this from the PGR CoP System once the Panel’s recommendation has been signed off by the Dean. In the case of all other recommendations, you will be notified via an email sent by your Graduate School. In all cases your supervisors will be notified and you will be able to login to view the full comments in the PGR CoP system.
Re-submission arrangements
In the case of a resubmission recommendation (recommendation iii), a a date will be set by your Academic Unit for this resubmission panel to take place. You should work with your supervisors to address the requirements set out in the Panel’s report and, at the appropriate time, complete a new APR submission in the PGR CoP system. The APR Panel may request to meet with you again to consider whether progress has been such that the research project will now meet the standards for the award.
The outcome from a re-submission needs to be unambiguous, as it is not possible for the student to remain under continuous review. They must be progressed or have their registration withdrawn. Though of course there may be further, less serious issues for the student to continue to address with their supervisors
On-going monitoring of progression
Throughout your degree your supervisors will monitor your progress to ensure you remain on course to achieve your project plan. between your Annual Progress Reviews. If you are failing to make satisfactory academic progress at times other than during the normal APR cycle, your supervisors will inform you in writing of their concerns and invite you to a meeting to discuss this. At this meeting your supervisors may request that you complete some additional work by an agreed date. If your progress is still considered to be unsatisfactory, they may request to your Academic Unit that an Extraordinary Progress Review (EPR) is held.
This would be different to the usual APR as it would be initiated by the Academic Unit (usually Director of Postgraduate Studies) normally following concerns from the supervisory team.
You and your supervisory team would be asked to respond to the specific concerns leading to the Extraordinary Progress Review (e.g. mid-year review of progress, capability concerns etc), rather than undertake the full Annual Progress Review.